VisionFromFeeling - General discussion thread

I've posted a few specific observations of the sad specatacle in the "Live Challenge Event" thread as well as this more general overview:


Akhenaten said:
My overall impression is that there were two completely different programmes running at the same time. One was the alleged demonstration of . . . something . . . and the other was The Anita Kristina Ikonen "Look At Me!" Show. The last few minutes of the final video make it abundantly clear which one garnered the most attention.

If this farce was intended to demonstrate the future direction the MDC will be taking, then for this viewer at least, the JREF will soon be playing Dancing with the Stars to the IIG's Smithsonian Channel. It really did make them look that bad.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for that. For someone who has not been addicted to the VFF threads, this really makes it look as if she is getting some of our prize skeptics to drink the cool aid. I'm sure we all have friends who are obsessive about something, but we don't help them by indulging them in their delusions.

I remember seeing a video of Randi testing a lady who believed in crystal power, very concise, quick, and fair. Failure ensued, end of video. No need for a dissertation on how perhaps we need to consider the reasons for failure, beyond the simple fact that there is no such thing as crystal power.
 
Excellent! Just what we needed.

Introducing the JREF's and skepticism's newest spokesperson - Anita Ikonen.


Here's some little samples to enjoy:


Vision from Failing said:
I would totally recommend that woos attend TAM, though they must do so respectfully and without promoting their woo, not to ruin this fantastic skeptical event for the others, since I do think that woos are among the ones who would most benefit from this event and learn from the lecturers who carefully explain skepticism and illustrate with examples.
Click to expand...


Vision from Failing said:
I attended not only for my TAM demonstration, but equally much to attend and learn from the lectures. I had a great time, absolutely loved the lectures, met lots of new skeptical friends, did a few readings, had a TAM demonstration . . .
Click to expand...
my bolding


Jeebus wept, what a joke.
 
Last edited:
sgf8 - you can do a screengrab of the comments and photoshop out people's names. I can do it too, but only if you give permission.
 
Akhenaten said:
You missed the point slighly, mate. Those of us who don't have facebook accounts can't see your pictures.

:)
Click to expand...


Nor can those of us who do have Facebook but aren't on your (sgf8's) friend list.
 
Last edited:
Second choice? Heck, I had a vision last year that it would be person #2 right side, and that she would choose person #3 left side by mistake. I should have documented this, but hey, just take my word for it.


http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/tests.html
The Amaz!ng Meeting TAM8 demonstration of my claim
July 11 2010
I chose person #3 left side, target was person #2 right side
... my second choice would have been person #2 right side
Click to expand...

Does this make any sense? I read several posts a long time ago about all the odds stuff associated with the first test, this just sounds bogus to me.

I acchieved statistical odds of 3.8%
... meaning that if 100 people were guessing randomly, only 3 or 4 of them would be expected to do as well as I did.
Click to expand...
 
chose person #3 left side, target was person #2 right side
... my second choice would have been person #2 right side

Looks like the investigation continues!! Im shocked.. :jaw-dropp

No one saw that coming...:D


Her odds of guessing in the IIg test were about 1:4 not very impressive and she failed miserably . I also guessed as she did 1st trial wrong ,2nd exactly right and third trial right person and wrong side but the only difference is I dont have a whack a doodle website set up..
 
Last edited:
I guessed correctly that it was Hal who was missing the kidney. My guess was logged in real time in the chat room and everything.

I also guessed correctly that Anita would guess incorrectly.

:)
 
Steve Muscarella wrote
at 3:13pm on July 13th, 2010
Legally speaking, those pencil-written notes were tainted the moment Anita left the stage with them since she had time and opportunity to alter them. I'm not saying she DID so, I’m just saying that the "chain of custody" was broken and those notes are now useless as evidence.

In fairness to all, Banachek or Alison should have kept them or, at least, photographed them to document their providence. It is now, of course, too late. So if/when Anita posts scans of these on her website and tries to "spin" things in her favor, remember the chain of events.

Delete
Anita Ikonen (UNC Charlotte) wrote
at 2:40pm yesterday
Thank you Steve and I totally agree. The conversation depicted here in this picture, concerns in fact me discussing this very problem which you brought up Steve.

I handed my notebook to Alison before the demonstration results were announced precisely for the purpose of credibility assurance. However, I was disappointed that after the results, Alison handed it back to me.

The video of this after-the-test will show that I am quite concerned of the ensuing credibility issue regarding my notes. Fortunately, I was videotaped by at least three cameras and if we are lucky, video footage may prove that I did not touch the notes pages with a pen or in otherwise alter the content.

Also, Joe Nickell photographed each of the pages when I stepped down from the stage.

But contrary to your suspicions, Steve, I have no intention of using this possible source of credibility issue in favor of the claim. I was rather quite unhappy that Banachek or Alison did not keep the notes with them at all times. The notes now reside with Banachek, and copies will be made available.

The actual credibility of those notes, ie. if I had the opportunity to alter their content, should be given by the demonstration video.

Thank you Steve! Good eye for catching that!
Delete
Ban Achek wrote
at 5:40pm yesterday
honesty, this is all irrelevant, there was no test. It was a demonstration of skills and in this case the result was negative and would been just as non important if positive.

Again, there was absolutely no controls so the non-test was already tainted from beginning to end. Even if the notes were kept and immediately taken and photographed and on and on they still would not be of any use since the entire demonstration was just that, a demonstration so we could have a minor exercise in how a it would look like with no controls in place. So the point of the notes being tainted is really moot. I only have them for my history. That is all. Other than that they have no meaning and should have no meaning.

A very large part of the audience guessed the same as Anita and were wrong and a decent amount did get it right. The people who got it right are not thought of as Psychic or of importance in this demonstration so neither should Anita. Any notes they made would be just as important in this demonstration if this was the case.

I thank Anita for her time, her efforts and being willing to share her process. But that is as far as it goes for that demonstration.
Delete
Anita Ikonen (UNC Charlotte) wrote
at 4:34am
I disagree Banachek. This little demonstration was a crucial part of my investigation, as it does teach me about the process behind my claim. I do agree that a positive result would not have been able to provide evidence in favor of the claim. Meanwhile, my inaccurate answer I do hold against the claim regardless of if you, or the JREF, does. Wrong is wrong. And right would not have mattered, in this test.

I would love to receive copies of my notes for my documentation purposes for my website.
Delete
Kathleen Scott wrote
at 12:30pm
Sweetie, the test had too few controls to be scientific. Since it is impossible to judge how much information you had ahead of time, those notes are worthless. You would be using them to augment capricious memory, something no experiment can afford.
Delete
Anita Ikonen (UNC Charlotte) wrote
at 12:40pm
Keeping in consideration what the test conditions were, I can still learn from this demonstration, and I have learned, and that is valuable and not to be discarded. The main issue resulting from poor controls is simply the fact that had I chosen the correct answer, that answer would not have had much significance and especially not been able to provide evidence in favor of the claim.
Delete
 
Olowkow said:
Thanks for that. For someone who has not been addicted to the VFF threads, this really makes it look as if she is getting some of our prize skeptics to drink the cool aid. I'm sure we all have friends who are obsessive about something, but we don't help them by indulging them in their delusions.

I remember seeing a video of Randi testing a lady who believed in crystal power, very concise, quick, and fair. Failure ensued, end of video. No need for a dissertation on how perhaps we need to consider the reasons for failure, beyond the simple fact that there is no such thing as crystal power.
Click to expand...

Yep, otherwise this whole charade is like so many intelligent adults giving deep consideration to a four-year-old's claim of seeing fairies. Kudos to Anita for getting such extraordinary mileage out of such a patent absurdity. I suspect that Anita doesn't take her own codswallop seriously – its only the for the attention, isn't it. Also, good on Randi for having the sense to not stick around.
 
Same ole same ole

What should be on Vision From Failings tests page.

Reading Dr Carlson Failed to find a missing kidney

First trial at IIg test took 2 guesses Failed to find the missing kidney
Second trial took 2 guesses Success
Third trial took 2 guesses Failed to find the missing kidney

Read a friend/relative Failed to find a missing kidney

Tam8, one trial took 2 guesses , Failed to find the missing kidney.

Sum total 25 people and six were missing kidneys only one success.

Conclusion from any sane person nothing to see here Game over.

Vision from failing "The investigation(Game) continues" :boggled:
 
For those who care...

I caught some photos (which do not include full focus) of Anita showing her notes to people after the demonstration. They seem nonsensical and don't have a simple list of yes-or-no, so interpreting them outside the context of Anita's head is difficult.

But in case you want them, here are pictures of both pages I could catch. Sorry about the focus, it was dark in there and she never held them dead-on to me to catch the full page in the focal plane:

1 page (click for a bigger version):


2 page (click for a bigger version):


I never saw more than two pages of notes. But I'd like to point out that her odds for choosing a target out of a group of 5 with two guesses are quite high, around the 40% mark.
 
paperskater said:
Wow, what kind of camera and lens were you using?

(Sorry for the off-topic question!)
Click to expand...

A Nikon D700. Those photos were shot using an Nikkor 85mm F/1.8 lens at f/1.8. Both were shot from approx 1m away, without flash, at ISO 1800.

For some reason the scaling has made them a little dark. Sorry about that.
 
"I never saw more than two pages of notes. But I'd like to point out that her odds for choosing a target out of a group of 5 with two guesses are quite high, around the 40% mark."

Actually its a 60% chance she chose 3 people out of the 5 the 1st person was only weak and only saw it once but she would have claimed a hit for this one as well if he was the target ..the investigation continues ....;)


She will make a big song and dance about the notes now as a smoke screen.
The notes make no difference she had 3 guesses and a 60% chance to continue the masquerade..!! Just a typical woo , she really is the poster child for a woo claimant.

I think we have found Forest Gump's sister...
 
Spot the difference

May 30 2010: vision from failing does a reading on a relative. Who she already knows has a dislocated kidney but misses it anyways.

She then asked me how about her kidneys? (which Vision from failing didn't find) , hmm time for another case of the Carlson's.


But I immediately found that one kidney was not there!(now that she was reminded) It was very clear and obvious! So I said to her that she only has one kidney there! I then remembered that yes, she does have a dislocated kidney which is placed in her lower pelvic region. She then asks me which one is it and where exactly it is. I quickly choose a confident answer to say it is the left one, because when I make the image in my mind of right one up and left one down it matches in resonance when I apply it and superimpose with the feeling that I actually perceive of her, and when I make the image in my mind of left one up and right one down and place that over the actual feeling from her back, it has a strong dissonance, kind of like feeling an imbalance in weight. And yes it is the left one below.
I had a hard time determining where exactly it was, although I was sure it was not vertically aligned but placed lying down (I drew it). I logically assumed that the kidney must be in the back portion from my studies of anatomy I thought it must be in the same body cavity as the kidneys and urinary system otherwise are. So I was only allowing myself the thought that it is located somewhere there. I did narrow out regions, but wasn't able to pinpoint exactly where, but I knew it was down far below. She then says it is located at the front (and she drew it for me).

Immediate clear and obvious ,resonance, super imposing, imbalances ohh its exciting stuff!

Now the Tam test

x|0|0
-----
0|x|x
-----
x|0|x

hmm its either person 1 2 or 3, maybe even 4 and 5 but I need screens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom